9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill the end of 1985, its factory building was under construction and in January, 1986, the unit came into production. For the three quarters commencing from January, 1986 to September, 1986, the petitioner's advocate filed sales tax returns showing the gross turnover as "nil". On November 26, 1986, the officials of the sales tax authority visited the factory premises. Thereafter on November 28, 1986, the petitioner filed three separate returns in respect of three quarters, noticed above. It also paid the tax due on the gross turnover. On February 11, 1987, the Assessing Authority passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 66,320 under section 48 of the Act in respect of the period January, 1986 to March 31, 1986. The petitioner's appeal, etc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the petitioner, has, inter alia, contended that orders of imposition of the penalty against the petitioner were wholly unjustified and the provisions of section 48 of the Act were not at all attracted. He has further submitted that the lawyer, who had filed the returns in respect of three quarters, had, in fact, not been authorised to sign the returns on behalf of the petitioner and consequently those returns could not form a basis to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the gross turnover from the department. Mr. Jhingan has also contended that the Tribunal had erred in upholding the imposition of penalty while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner's appeal and set aside the order of imposition of penalty for the second quarter. It had remanded the case to the Assessing Authority for fresh decision after consideration of all the relevant facts and law. It is also the admitted position that the department did not file any appeal or revision against the order passed by the appellate authority. It was only the petitioner that had filed an appeal before the Tribunal. While considering the appeal, the Tribunal in exercise of its powers under section 39 of the Act could have only considered the points raised by the appellant before it. It could not have gone into the matters, which were not agitated by the Assessing Authority or challenged by the department by filing an appeal. Since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
